There are many better at find those numbers then I am. I know we've seen some nice graphs on this very forum showing the difference in debt had we not had the Bush cuts.

Since we're arguing the principle of the situation the actual dollar figure is somewhat irrelevent. What's more interesting to me is the people fighting tooth and nail (and as others said above) holding the government hostage to make sure that the top rates don't change at the expense of their themselves.

First of all we're not talking about all of the Bush cuts, only the highest marginal rate. I think the numbers are actually important if we're talking about reducing the deficit the federal govt is incurring. Perhaps the amount of debt federal govt is incurring doesn't interest you and/or you're not concerned. If so fair enough.

BTW Bush tax cuts set to expire in 2013.

As a republican, I'm willing to revert all tax rates back to the pre-Bush era. Could we be bi-partisan and agree on this?

peetar = RINO

Buffett gonna buffett.

I wonder if his angle is ratcheting up the barriers to lessen the chances anyone will become as a wealthy as him.

Just a question: do you have any examples of Buffett buying companies far under their worth because their owners can't pay the inheritance tax? No. Most of his wealth (close to 100% according to Forbes) comes from owning Berkshire stock. Berkshire hasn't paid a dividend in about 40 years.

Because he's never going to sell his holdings he will never, ever, pay any taxes on earning $50 billion. Hurrr.

Giving away all your money sounds like a great plan to prevent anyone from becoming as rich as you are.

What Buffet knows, and is trying to tell people, is that during most of the time he was building his billions, the max income tax rate ranged from 40%-70%. And the capital gains tax ranged from 39%-21%. And with those tax rates, he and the other billionaires still managed to become billionaires.

So he is saying that over the last several years, his tax rates have kept getting lower and lower, so thanks for the extra money. But he and his peers were doing just fine with the higher rates, and would continue to do so if the rates were raised.

It's eye opening to see what the US tax rates have been historically, and then realize that today's rates are the lowest they have been in decades. So under the theory that low taxes = economic growth, business should be growing and hiring like crazy now. But it's just not that simple.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

buffett became a multimultimultimillionaire when the highest bracket was paying like 70%

edit: and yeah capital gains was a lot higher too. but really he just wants an unfair advantage ldo

How many times did you hear that on FOX News b4 saying to yourself: "Hey, I'll use that line on the 2+2 politics forum!"

Ever think to yourself that he gives an extra 800k to charity instead?

Those pundits on t.v. attack Buffett because most of them make well over a million but under 5m and think they'll get included. Buffett is talking about the "super-rich" which doesn't include the vast majority of those pundits on t.v......no matter how big their egos are.

All that money will come back..........just as soon as the govt. has to cut 100s of thousands of jobs & slash the budget to the bone to keep from going bankrupt, they'll be a pool of unemployed just waiting for the chance to work for $7.95 an hr, cause unemployment won't be squat, if it exists at all.

Now that I think of it, maybe 21Dec12 really is the end and the govt. knows......
Obama was going to make a visit there earlier this year, but his trip got cut short.

Scott Sumner owns Warren Buffett

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=10700

I know, since all the raising of the price of candy bars from the 1980s to present you can hardly find a Snickers bar, much less a bag of M&M's anywhere. Damn, if they'd only kept the price the same they'd still be around.

b

It doesn't take much to pull the wool over the eyes.

b

Agree.

Bolded: Who is benefiting/profiting from this?

Underlined: Who has the most resource/power to influence this?

Easy math.

b

Uh, wat? Exactly what the **** is going on in this article?

What part do you not understand?

How about the part that bases taxes on consumption, rather than income (and yes, I've read the follow-up link). Taxes are supposed to be a way to distribute the shared costs of running a society (police, highways, schools etc.) in a fair way among its citizens.

Having a frugal multi-billionare and an equally frugal minimum-wage worker pay the same amount of taxes (since their consumption is equal) not only fails abysmally in achieving that (the billionaires untaxed income that he doesnt consume provides him with at least one thing at that he continuously "consumes", yet does not pay taxes on and that the other guy doesn't have - security and the feeling of being well insured against most random misfortunes in life) but actually helps in widening inequalities, since the minimum-wage workers entire income will be taxed (he cannot chose to not eat) while only a tiny fraction of the billionaires (he can well chose to not buy a yacht).

Maybe equal in the same senst that the proposals that everyone should pay the same $-amount in taxe would be called equal, yet definitly not fair.

The situation you describe is fair. Both the frugal people are living the same lifestyle. The only difference is one could consume more if he wanted, but if he did, he would get taxed for it. The benefit of a scheme like that is that resources are put to more productive uses. Taxing wealth creators and producers only disincentivizes that activity. Taxing consumption would hopefully make people make wiser uses of scarce resources. You can't really look at it with two isolated people. Over all of society, people are making better choices about how much to work or invest and how much to consume. This makes us all better off.

The guy isn't really "owning" Buffett when the entire premise of his article requires a situation (national sales tax) that doesn't exist

Terrible author is terrible.

Worst criticism of Buffett, ever? The author assumes that Buffett derives no utility from the money he doesn't consume and thus he is taxed at high levels. Lol?

But wouldn't it be better to tax peeople more for LACK of consumption, i.e. if you are sitting around with billions of dollars (like most readers of this forum) and not spending it, then you should be taxed on that money b/c by just sitting on it you are hindering the liquidity of the economy. people w/billions of dollars should be creating jobs & if they aren't they can hand that money over to the government so they can pay for abortions for poor women.

No, a national sales tax would make the situation fair. Currently Buffett is paying a lot more taxes than he should. Read the title of the article.

and this at the end...

Author isn't some fringe freakshow.

You are assuming that society doesn't benefit from the money Buffett is using to invest instead of consuming. You are assuming that government consumption would be better for society than Buffett's investment. Eventually someone will consume the returns Buffett accumulates, either his heirs or the Gates Foundation. At that point the government will get a cut. I don't see how it can be bad to let one of the world's greatest allocators of capital to run his stash up as much as possible before we take a cut.

I'm assuming (and i think it is buffett's point as well) that in a society that has decided that a progressive tax is the way to go - that the very wealthiest should pay a overall effective annual percentage similar or more than what someone in middle or upper middle class pay as a effective overall percentage of gross income. Why should someone making a mere 100k pay a higher overall percentage of their income compared to a billionaire like buffet who in effect pays a much smaller percentage of his annual take home money?

In buffett's own words paying a bit more in taxes like the super rich like him did in decades past is not a significant impediment to being super rich like him, at least that is what he is actually saying, and what he actually experienced, and his personal opinion and experience should matter as much as anybody's and certainly more than most anyone.

Why does he even define tax rate as "taxes paid / ( taxes paid + consumption )" ? Is that some quirk of these national sales tax people? Cause if Buffett paid $7m in taxes on $600k of consumption, it sounds like he's being taxed at 1167%! The author could REALLY "own" Buffett with that figure!